New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

vs

Which one, when

Both claude-sonnet-5-5 and deepseek-v4.1-flash take text and image in, return text, carry a 1000000-token context window, and cover chat, code, tools and reasoning, so the real split is cost and output room. deepseek-v4.1-flash is about 6.7x cheaper on input ($0.3 vs $2) and roughly 8.3x cheaper on output ($1.2 vs $10), with cache reads at $0.03 against $0.2, and it allows up to 393216 output tokens versus 128000. Pick claude-sonnet-5-5 when you want Anthropic's newer 2026-09-28 release and its 2026-06 knowledge cutoff; pick the DeepSeek model for high-volume or long-generation work.

Benchmarks

Claude Sonnet 5.5: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageNo peer higherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash14 / 194 / 19
Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash other models measured peer average ★ no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
N/A
no peer scored higher 74.2%
Cybergym
N/A
no peer scored higher 88.1%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
90.9%
Agents' Last Exam
N/A
31.8%
Chartography with tools
N/A
78.9%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $2 $0.3 6.7×
Output / 1M tokens $10 $1.2 8.3×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.2 $0.03 6.7×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) no separate charge -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control always on yes - vendor dial not published
Structured output yes -
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option no fixed TTL (evicted when unused)
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens not published

Specs

Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Input modalities text image text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-28 2026-09-10
Knowledge cutoff 2026-06 -
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 393K
Thinking parameter thinking.type -
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • adaptive (default)
  • between_tools
-
Default adaptive, effort high -

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.

out 205 tok latency 3.6 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning changed the unit economics: the model now spends extra billable tokens internally to “think” before producing the answer, and those reasoning tokens are charged like output tokens even though users never see them. That added token generation—plus longer contexts and occasional retries on harder prompts—roughly doubled our cost per request. We can control this by capping reasoning depth, routing only complex queries to reasoning models, and caching common prompts to bring the bill back down.

out 423 tok (+327 thinking) latency 14.6 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases

**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]

out 444 tok latency 6.7 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` is counting equal adjacent pairs, not elements in the current run: every time `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`, the run length increases by one element, but the first element of the run was never counted, so all runs are undercounted by one. Also, `best` starts at `0`, so single-element inputs return `0` instead of `1`, and a one-element run ending at the last index is missed entirely.

out 918 tok (+733 thinking) latency 11.4 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.

out 300 tok latency 3.5 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}

out 1707 tok (+1667 thinking) latency 15.1 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.

out 266 tok latency 3.8 s

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 116 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Cache for our API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests and their responses across supported model providers, then serves cached results when a match is found. Teams can cut duplicate inference costs, reduce latency, and keep behavior consistent during provider failover. The cache works with configurable TTLs, per-route rules, and cache-key controls, so you decide what is reusable and what must stay fresh. Does your application send the same prompts to multiple providers? Now your gateway can answer many of those calls without another upstream request. Existing observability dashboards show hit rates, saved tokens, and estimated spend reduction. Enable it in the gateway console, set your policy, and start caching today.

out 917 tok (+770 thinking) latency 9.0 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-5-5",
    # model="deepseek-v4.1-flash",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.3 vs $2, 6.7× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Sonnet 5.5 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies